I recently heard a comment that has given me cause for reflection. The comment was that the measurement of the morality of a government, or perhaps more fairly, a government action, is whether it protects the top or the bottom in the economic strata.
We all know of despotic governments that clearly protect the top. But most governments are some of this, some of that. So we are left with evaluating government actions.
My sense is that a conservative has already determined what is moral – any government impingement into individual affairs is an intrusion, and as such is at least undesirable, and perhaps is even immoral. So the Wall street bailout, from this point of view, was bad because it was a bailout (a government intervention). Of less concern is that the top has clearly benefitted, and there is little evidence that the bottom has benefitted.
I think I have discovered something as a result of these conversations. I think I am a liberal. I really had given this very little thought before we began these conversations, but now, there you have it. Equality of results is the goal of the socialist. Equality of opportunity is the goal of the liberal.
A liberal believes in good governance. This implies that there needs to be a continual evaluation of government action to see what effect it is having on the people. It means that there needs to be continual learning.
Did you just have clarity that you are a liberal now? :)
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in how you see the difference of a modern day liberal vs a socialist, to me there are very few differences. The liberal parties across the world, appear to want to achieve equality of results, and equality of opportunity is not what they are after. Obama for example, is clearly a socialist/liberal as i define it. One of many examples, when he was asked about the Laffer Curve, and how even higher taxes on the top 1% would actually bring in less money, he said he was still in favor of it. The reason is, because he is for equal results, as are most liberals based on their policies (either that or they dont have clarity). They ignore that the top 1% already pay 43% of all taxes in the US, and pay a much higher percentage of their wealth than any other group. They also ignore that those in the bottom 20% rarely stay in the bottom 20% historically - unlike socialist countries, where the bottom 20% stay in the bottom 20%.
Why "has the top clearly benefitted and there is little evidence that the bottom has benefitted" ?
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be dumb or cheeky, it is a honest question to Eric or Karl. For I find this a typical "left" statement but is it true?
I cannot speak to liberal policies but liberal people that I know are rarely for "equal opportunity". They want equal opportunity for all with the big exception of those that are richer than they are. They don't seem to realize that to much of the world they are rich themselves, it is of course a relative scale, and using their logic they could be denied equal opportunity.
ReplyDeleteLori
Carline, what I meant is quite simple: the Wall Street bailout kept a bunch of companies afloat, who, we are lead to believe, would have gone under, had the bailout not occurred. The executives of those companies have been able to pay themselves substantial bonuses. Who can argue that these "at the top' have not benefited from that government action. Less obvious is whether "those at the bottom" have benefited from this government action. Foreclosures are continuing. The way the bailout was structured, it was to "protect the top", and if one is inclined that way, one can assume that this benefit would trickle down to those in the bottom, and in this way those at the bottom also would benefit. I may be wrong, but I think the preferred conservative approach is to do nothing, but if it is to do something, it would do this.
ReplyDeleteAn alternative approach would be to take steps to reduce the need for foreclosures -- that the same money used to protect the banks, would have been available as special loans to people facing foreclosure so the foreclosure would not need to move forward. The assumption here would be that by preventing the foreclosures (protecting those at the bottom), those at the top would also be protected.
I don't have a sufficient understanding of the banking system, not am I sufficiently familiar with the options, to know what sort of intervention would be best, but I hope you get my point: We have a crisis. Government intervenes in order to protect the economy. Let's assume this is a totally benign action -- nothing sinister. The government has, in a sense, two options 1)move in and protect the top, assuming everyone will benefit, or 2) it moves in to protect the bottom, assuming everyone will benefit.
With either approach, there are at least 2 questions: 1) Does it work at all -- does the economy regain its strength, helped by the intervention, and 2) does the trickle up or trickle down actually occur.
Following on my thoughts at the beginning of this particular post, it is my perception that conservatives are not particularly interested in research on this question. they already know, and will find research to support their point of view.
Similarly socialists are already convinced of their point of view, and don't really need much research.
True liberals (not necessarily like those you and I know Lori), don't know, and are continuously looking for answers. This means they will change their mind often, and many consider them wishy washy.
Having said that, I really am not interested in a debate about what is liberal and what is socialist -- unless someone else wants it.
Karl, you're getting an answer yet.